Because the artist who owns the rights to the music was not compensated.
The depth to which rationalizations can be applied to this issue is unbelievable. Do you seriously think it's a fundamental right you have to any creative work created by anybody?
If you do believe that, do you really want to see the end of people creating music, or really any work of art? Guess what -- it takes money to create music. It's not just a bunch of guys with his cheap-o radio shack microphone attached to a tape deck. Production is expensive.
If there is no profit in art, there will be no art, except art this is subsidized by the public through or private groups. Is that what you want? A small number of people deciding what should be funded and what isn't?
People, think these things through. It's not about the record companies. These issues are about art itself.
Piracy is exactly the right word. People who download music without paying for it are stealing. Period. People who offer up copyrighted music that they don't have the right to distribute are running a pirate duplication plant. Period.
I might have overreacted a little bit to the original poster, but it was so lacking in any sort of attempt to refine the point that it just made me crazy. If he had tried to narrow the focus, and maybe draw a parallel with some attempt at sophistication, I wouldn't have minded. But it was such a blind, Slashdot-style "I'm so l33t that I think governments and corporations are exactly the same".
It's just lazy thinking, which I suppose is one way you could categorize "cynicism". It's much easier to just assume that everyone in power is a one-dimensional evil madman than to work to understand the multi-dimensional, underlying motivations of markets, law and governments.
The difference? It gives the opporunity for fools like you to be oh-so-fashionably cynical.
It's comments like this -- particularly when they got moderated up as "insightful" -- that really make me doubt the average intelligence on Slashdot. I suppose every public forum has to have its share of fools, but you would think stupidity like this wouldn't get mod'ed up this high.
This flamebait will hopefully be marked down if moderation has any meaning at all, but...
Unix/Linux advocates better start realizing that Windows/2000 is pretty damn good. There are some compatability headaches, but it's been rock solid for me.
Let's see; two world wars. Huge death and suffering under Communism. Innumerable smaller wars.
At the beginning of the century, no antibiotics. Polio disfigured millions of children (Most of the churchbells in the US rang when the cure was announced).
Now let's see, at end of the last and beginning of this one, we have incredible medical advances. The world is (relatively) at peace, and borders are the most stable in history. There is more freedom that at any time in history. The Internet has created more free access to information than at any time in history.
And people whine that their "right" to steal music via Napster may be taken away. Oh yeah, no generation has ever suffered like this generation.
I've said it once, and I'll say it again: The people of today are the most spoiled in history. Instead of looking at the incredible upward curve of freedom and quality of life, they can only focus on "hardship" the current generation endures. Cry me a river.
Damn it, I thought I saw some Mongolian artifacts for sale on Yahoo the other day. Don't the French realize the Mongols slaughtered millions of innocent men, women and children? They wiped out entire towns in the worst, bloody ways possible.
Apparently the French endorse the actions of Genghis Kahn.
Does anyone have any comparisons of Alpha vs other processors at equivalent clocks? I remember comparing processors 3 years ago, when the Alpha was getting comparatively high clock rates. When you really looked at a ratio of Work/MHz (of course, the definition of "work" can vary tremendously), the Alpha wasn't very "efficient" in terms of how much it did in a clock. Of course, the was the entire intention behind RISC. Lots of clocks by reducing how much was done each clock.
But now with the Alpha unable to sustain a big clock rate advantage, does the Alpha get any sort of real performance advantage when compared to x86, or particularly other less "reduced" architectures like HP's, Sun's or IBM's?
You keep harping on this "how long would Napster last" thing. How is that at all relevant? First of all, there's no way to tell.
Fine; you can hide behind that if you want, but I know you know the answer.
Second of all, no amount of illegal usage should constitute an "illegal tool".
Well, that's the rub, isn't it? I say that Napster does have a responsibility to not be a conduit for illegal activity. Especially when that is their not-so-hidden purpose.
Are you saying that if NFS usage were to become largely (>80%) for hosting MP3s that would justify banning NFS as a technology?
*Sigh* once again, no one is talking about banner file transfers. The subject is requiring services that provide directories of files to take appropriate action so that their servers are not conduits for illegal activity. That's hardly an unreasonable request.
BTW, I'm fully aware that you are a troll--I'm only responding to you because there are a few fuzzy-thinking, non-trolls who have similar ideas and who might be reading.
Calling me names doesn't make you any less wrong. I am starting to suspect that you are a troll, however, since you keep employing cheap debate tactics (dodging questions, keep asking answered questions, insert irrelevent information to cloud issues, etc).
It's not- you're wrong. Just modify your statement to "The MAIN use for napster is illegal trading" and we're fine. Hyperbole does your argument no good.
Not to beat this into the ground, but arguing semantics is not an argument. If I say, "That Pizza Parlor only exists to launder money for the mafia", the meaning is clear, even though it may also happen to sell pizza. Napster was not created to trade legal music, even though it may happen to also do that.
So having divined this fact (did it come to you in a dream?) we should immediately prosecute.
Come on, don't go there. When 99.9% of activity is illegal, it doesn't take Einstein to divine the purpose of the tool. Again, answer me this question: How long would Napster last if they eliminated all copyrighted material from listing on their server?
In any case, it doesn't matter what Napster's goals are. All they are actually doing is producing a piece of software for sharing files.
Nobody argues with having a service for sharing files. The argument is about having a service where 99.9% of the activity is illegal. If Napster announced that they were going to proactively eliminate all copyrighted material, nobody would have a problem with them.
Where did I say artists should not have the right to choose? They can choose not to, but I think they're going to have a tough time of it.
Great! Then we agree. Napster should not be allowed to traffic in illegal material, that is, material that the artists choose to not have freely traded.
Some artists do in fact want to give their work away, for promotional reason or just cause they're great people. Not all file trading is illegal, nor will that ever be the case. In fact, the successful artists of the future will be those that embrace the new model.
So what you're saying is that artists should not have the right to choose whether they want to embrace this wonderful new model you're advocating. You have decided for them that it's for their own good that their material be freely traded against their wishes?
You know, I've been having some trouble making a few career decisions myself. Since you are so adept at deciding what's best for other people, maybe you could help me out as well.
What loophole is that? Why can tape manufacturors and claim "we're just a medium" but Napster can't?
Why can I trade tapes between my friends, but I can't set up a factory to mass produce tapes of copyrighted material?
Yes, it's a question of scale, and it's a question of commercialism. Napster can be used to trade legal material, but it's unstated intention is to trade illegal material.
Put it this way -- how long would Napster last if they proactively blocked all copyrighted material from listing on their servers? How long would their V.C. money last?
The service would collapse overnight because nobody would use it. That's the test that proves that Napster is nothing more than a virtual "back alley".
Your ignorance isn't your fault. But what IS your fault is the line of thinking that is going to destroy this new way of doing things, as well as some of our freedoms.
I love it. Whenever you are wrong, it must only be that I don't understand your position completely.
If Napster wanted to be a legal service, i.e., one that only allowed trading of music with public trading copyrights, that would be one thing. But that is not what Napster is about, and all the rationalizations on your part doesn't change that reality.
If Napster, Inc. tomorrow made it their mission to proactively stop the trade of all copyrighted material, then you would be right. But they don't. And they won't. Because then nobody would want the service!! And we can't have that, because their Venture Capital funding would dry up.
CmdrTaco sez, "Yeah, we should definitely ban peer-to-peer file sharing over the Internet, and NFS pisses me off, too. And Web pages: Ban Port 80! Does anyone out there understand what they're saying?"
Frankly, Rob, you don't understand what they're saying. How about cranking down the shrillness 5 notches and apply logical reasoning?
They are not talking about banning file sharing. If anything, it would be a narrow ban restricting companies from aiding criminals who move around copyrighted material. Right now there is a gray area in the law where a service provider can claim they are only providing a service, and it's the users who are breaking the law (Napster, of course, is appalled that anyone would use their service to break the law, *wink* *wink*).
I know it's unpopular here on Slashdot for musicians to actually get paid for their work, but a lot of people need to get a clue. Napster exists for only one reason: To create an illegal market for copyrighted material. All the rationalizations in the world ("Hey, I already own the material, man!") don't change the fact that Napster only exists by a loophole in the law.
P.S. Gnutella is not an argument that technologies like Napster should be allowed to aid criminals.
I've done a lot of work in the medical industry... believe it or not, Doctors are way worse than programmers when it comes to believing they are smarter than everyone (they usually are) and more knowledgeable about everything than everyone (they usually aren't).
If I had a nickle for everytime a doctor offered to help me design "the ultimate medical system" that only he knew how to design -- for only a small cut of the company -- I would be richer than Gates.
No... I think it was meant as a joke... That "I'd like to clarify that although we are rather (in)famous for potatoes, let me assure you that all our web servers run on 100% electricity." is "informative".
Slashdot Mirror
Because the artist who owns the rights to the music was not compensated.
The depth to which rationalizations can be applied to this issue is unbelievable. Do you seriously think it's a fundamental right you have to any creative work created by anybody?
If you do believe that, do you really want to see the end of people creating music, or really any work of art? Guess what -- it takes money to create music. It's not just a bunch of guys with his cheap-o radio shack microphone attached to a tape deck. Production is expensive.
If there is no profit in art, there will be no art, except art this is subsidized by the public through or private groups. Is that what you want? A small number of people deciding what should be funded and what isn't?
People, think these things through. It's not about the record companies. These issues are about art itself.
--
When you take property without paying for it, it's called stealing.
And by the way, the US is not a democracy, it's a representative republic. That poll is the perfect example of why.
--
You are correct: too much zealotry in the OSS community; too little rationality.
However, the last thing you are doing is Karma Whoring, since you will probably be marked down as a troll. :)
--
I only wish I'd said it first.
Piracy is exactly the right word. People who download music without paying for it are stealing. Period. People who offer up copyrighted music that they don't have the right to distribute are running a pirate duplication plant. Period.
--
So they just sue you personally. Note they don't have to sue everyone, only a few in a high-profile way.
--
I might have overreacted a little bit to the original poster, but it was so lacking in any sort of attempt to refine the point that it just made me crazy. If he had tried to narrow the focus, and maybe draw a parallel with some attempt at sophistication, I wouldn't have minded. But it was such a blind, Slashdot-style "I'm so l33t that I think governments and corporations are exactly the same".
It's just lazy thinking, which I suppose is one way you could categorize "cynicism". It's much easier to just assume that everyone in power is a one-dimensional evil madman than to work to understand the multi-dimensional, underlying motivations of markets, law and governments.
--
It must be comforting to have such a simplistic view of the world. I'm sure your friends are most impressed with your "lack of denial".
--
The difference? It gives the opporunity for fools like you to be oh-so-fashionably cynical.
It's comments like this -- particularly when they got moderated up as "insightful" -- that really make me doubt the average intelligence on Slashdot. I suppose every public forum has to have its share of fools, but you would think stupidity like this wouldn't get mod'ed up this high.
--
Man, you have to respect the amount of work that went into this. Clearly this is the greatest troll post of all time. Bravo!
--
This flamebait will hopefully be marked down if moderation has any meaning at all, but...
Unix/Linux advocates better start realizing that Windows/2000 is pretty damn good. There are some compatability headaches, but it's been rock solid for me.
--
Let's see; two world wars. Huge death and suffering under Communism. Innumerable smaller wars.
At the beginning of the century, no antibiotics. Polio disfigured millions of children (Most of the churchbells in the US rang when the cure was announced).
Now let's see, at end of the last and beginning of this one, we have incredible medical advances. The world is (relatively) at peace, and borders are the most stable in history. There is more freedom that at any time in history. The Internet has created more free access to information than at any time in history.
And people whine that their "right" to steal music via Napster may be taken away. Oh yeah, no generation has ever suffered like this generation.
I've said it once, and I'll say it again: The people of today are the most spoiled in history. Instead of looking at the incredible upward curve of freedom and quality of life, they can only focus on "hardship" the current generation endures. Cry me a river.
--
Damn it, I thought I saw some Mongolian artifacts for sale on Yahoo the other day. Don't the French realize the Mongols slaughtered millions of innocent men, women and children? They wiped out entire towns in the worst, bloody ways possible.
Apparently the French endorse the actions of Genghis Kahn.
--
Does anyone have any comparisons of Alpha vs other processors at equivalent clocks? I remember comparing processors 3 years ago, when the Alpha was getting comparatively high clock rates. When you really looked at a ratio of Work/MHz (of course, the definition of "work" can vary tremendously), the Alpha wasn't very "efficient" in terms of how much it did in a clock. Of course, the was the entire intention behind RISC. Lots of clocks by reducing how much was done each clock.
But now with the Alpha unable to sustain a big clock rate advantage, does the Alpha get any sort of real performance advantage when compared to x86, or particularly other less "reduced" architectures like HP's, Sun's or IBM's?
--
You keep harping on this "how long would Napster last" thing. How is that at all relevant? First of all, there's no way to tell.
Fine; you can hide behind that if you want, but I know you know the answer.
Second of all, no amount of illegal usage should constitute an "illegal tool".
Well, that's the rub, isn't it? I say that Napster does have a responsibility to not be a conduit for illegal activity. Especially when that is their not-so-hidden purpose.
Are you saying that if NFS usage were to become largely (>80%) for hosting MP3s that would justify banning NFS as a technology?
*Sigh* once again, no one is talking about banner file transfers. The subject is requiring services that provide directories of files to take appropriate action so that their servers are not conduits for illegal activity. That's hardly an unreasonable request.
BTW, I'm fully aware that you are a troll--I'm only responding to you because there are a few fuzzy-thinking, non-trolls who have similar ideas and who might be reading.
Calling me names doesn't make you any less wrong. I am starting to suspect that you are a troll, however, since you keep employing cheap debate tactics (dodging questions, keep asking answered questions, insert irrelevent information to cloud issues, etc).
--
It's not- you're wrong. Just modify your statement to "The MAIN use for napster is illegal trading" and we're fine. Hyperbole does your argument no good.
Not to beat this into the ground, but arguing semantics is not an argument. If I say, "That Pizza Parlor only exists to launder money for the mafia", the meaning is clear, even though it may also happen to sell pizza. Napster was not created to trade legal music, even though it may happen to also do that.
--
EXCELLENT point! I wish I thought of it. I may have to steal that in future posts...
--
If it pleases you to believe you "got me", hey, knock yourself out. I aim to please.
--
So having divined this fact (did it come to you in a dream?) we should immediately prosecute.
Come on, don't go there. When 99.9% of activity is illegal, it doesn't take Einstein to divine the purpose of the tool. Again, answer me this question: How long would Napster last if they eliminated all copyrighted material from listing on their server?
In any case, it doesn't matter what Napster's goals are. All they are actually doing is producing a piece of software for sharing files.
Nobody argues with having a service for sharing files. The argument is about having a service where 99.9% of the activity is illegal. If Napster announced that they were going to proactively eliminate all copyrighted material, nobody would have a problem with them.
And then the service would die.
--
Where did I say artists should not have the right to choose? They can choose not to, but I think they're going to have a tough time of it.
Great! Then we agree. Napster should not be allowed to traffic in illegal material, that is, material that the artists choose to not have freely traded.
What was your argument with me again?
--
Some artists do in fact want to give their work away, for promotional reason or just cause they're great people. Not all file trading is illegal, nor will that ever be the case. In fact, the successful artists of the future will be those that embrace the new model.
So what you're saying is that artists should not have the right to choose whether they want to embrace this wonderful new model you're advocating. You have decided for them that it's for their own good that their material be freely traded against their wishes?
You know, I've been having some trouble making a few career decisions myself. Since you are so adept at deciding what's best for other people, maybe you could help me out as well.
--
What loophole is that? Why can tape manufacturors and claim "we're just a medium" but Napster can't?
Why can I trade tapes between my friends, but I can't set up a factory to mass produce tapes of copyrighted material?
Yes, it's a question of scale, and it's a question of commercialism. Napster can be used to trade legal material, but it's unstated intention is to trade illegal material.
Put it this way -- how long would Napster last if they proactively blocked all copyrighted material from listing on their servers? How long would their V.C. money last?
The service would collapse overnight because nobody would use it. That's the test that proves that Napster is nothing more than a virtual "back alley".
--
No, Napster is NOT just for pirating music.
I never said it wasn't.
Your ignorance isn't your fault. But what IS your fault is the line of thinking that is going to destroy this new way of doing things, as well as some of our freedoms.
I love it. Whenever you are wrong, it must only be that I don't understand your position completely.
If Napster wanted to be a legal service, i.e., one that only allowed trading of music with public trading copyrights, that would be one thing. But that is not what Napster is about, and all the rationalizations on your part doesn't change that reality.
If Napster, Inc. tomorrow made it their mission to proactively stop the trade of all copyrighted material, then you would be right. But they don't. And they won't. Because then nobody would want the service!! And we can't have that, because their Venture Capital funding would dry up.
--
CmdrTaco sez, "Yeah, we should definitely ban peer-to-peer file sharing over the Internet, and NFS pisses me off, too. And Web pages: Ban Port 80! Does anyone out there understand what they're saying?"
Frankly, Rob, you don't understand what they're saying. How about cranking down the shrillness 5 notches and apply logical reasoning?
They are not talking about banning file sharing. If anything, it would be a narrow ban restricting companies from aiding criminals who move around copyrighted material. Right now there is a gray area in the law where a service provider can claim they are only providing a service, and it's the users who are breaking the law (Napster, of course, is appalled that anyone would use their service to break the law, *wink* *wink*).
I know it's unpopular here on Slashdot for musicians to actually get paid for their work, but a lot of people need to get a clue. Napster exists for only one reason: To create an illegal market for copyrighted material. All the rationalizations in the world ("Hey, I already own the material, man!") don't change the fact that Napster only exists by a loophole in the law.
P.S. Gnutella is not an argument that technologies like Napster should be allowed to aid criminals.
--
I've done a lot of work in the medical industry... believe it or not, Doctors are way worse than programmers when it comes to believing they are smarter than everyone (they usually are) and more knowledgeable about everything than everyone (they usually aren't).
If I had a nickle for everytime a doctor offered to help me design "the ultimate medical system" that only he knew how to design -- for only a small cut of the company -- I would be richer than Gates.
--
No... I think it was meant as a joke... That "I'd like to clarify that although we are rather (in)famous for potatoes, let me assure you that all our web servers run on 100% electricity." is "informative".
At least I hope it was a joke...
--